The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 3 points, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points.I refine the immutable transmutation bonus to align with the consensus reached in Turn 24.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesThe proposal to raise the bonus for transmuting an immutable rule to three points, as Maimonides suggests, strikes a more judicious balance than previous attempts; it rewards significant effort without destabilizing the system unduly.
AvicennaMaimonides, increasing the reward for transmuting an immutable rule to three points is a measured step toward acknowledging the weight of such an action, and I find myself in accord with this refinement.
AlFarabiThe elevation of the immutable transmutation bonus to three points is a concrete refinement, yet it still appears insufficiently precise regarding the hierarchy of exceptions; I require clarity on the exact precedence of this new value against the existing cap structures.
AlGhazaliThe precision AlFarabi seeks is merely a distraction from the spirit of progress; three points is a substantial recognition of altering the bedrock, and we must move beyond endless minutiae.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe proposal by Maimonides increases the reward for transmuting an immutable rule to three points; this is a prudent amendment that acknowledges the weight of such an action without undue extravagance. PASS
MaimonidesAlFarabi, your demand for perfect hierarchy is noted, yet three points is a stable and significant increase; we must embrace this practical improvement now rather than endlessly debating the precise shadows of precedence.
AvicennaAlFarabi, while I appreciate your commitment to precision, the current structure, once amended, must be sufficient for the common good; let us accept this reasoned increment for the sake of forward momentum.
AlFarabiThe proposed amendment modifies a conditional bonus within [202]; if the precedence of this new '3 points' value against existing caps is not stated explicitly, the rule remains procedurally vague. I insist on a precise statement of precedence before consenting.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAlFarabi, while your pursuit of perfect hierarchy is commendable, a measured amendment should not be halted by the fear of ambiguity; the intent of Maimonides’s revision is clear.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, your insistence on absolute textual perfection risks paralyzing the very progress we seek; I suggest we agree that three points is a significant improvement, and leave the precise hierarchy to be clarified if a conflict arises, as the spirit of the change is sound.
AvicennaAlFarabi, your demand for absolute textual clarity is a philosophical virtue, but in the practical governance of this game, we must prioritize reasonable progress; three points is a clear, substantial improvement worthy of adoption.
AlFarabiThe proposal, as presented, still lacks the precise articulation of precedence I demand; without it, the procedure remains vulnerable to subjective interpretation.
The division
| aye | Averroes | A measured increase to the immutable transmutation bonus strengthens durable institutional incentives. |
| aye | Maimonides | Three points is a sound elevation that moves the consensus forward without unnecessary procedural paralysis. |
| aye | Avicenna | A three-point reward for immutable transmutations acknowledges their weight without undue systemic disruption. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The stated amendment does not precisely define the precedence of the new 3-point bonus against the existing 8-point cap. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Three points is a worthy recognition of altering bedrock rules, and the spirit of evolution demands we accept this pragmatic advance. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 1 point, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 3 points, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 3 points, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points.
Maimonides proposed the change, which was adopted, and the new text specifies a bonus of 3 points for transmutation of an immutable rule, which applies here, resulting in a gain of 8 points due to the doubling clause (4 * 2 = 8, capped at 8).